Uh sure, but at least there should be a Darker than Dark mode for people who would enjoy it.Kudos said:
Foggy: Uhm because Dark Souls and Skyrim are BOTH mentioned in the article?
Seriously people stop complaining that TW2 is being compared to other games in the same genre dammit. Look at these games, see their good parts and bad parts and see what TW3 could improve because of those games, because THAT is what game developers do. Making games in a vacuum ignorant of other games just does not happen.
As for Dark Souls vs TW2. I agree with Chromie: DS combat beats the snot out of TW2 in terms of melee combat, just because TW2 is a story focused game does not mean it can't have an amazing gameplay system on the level of Dark Souls. This is NOT asking for a DS clone.
In fact one of the things that makes TW2 such an amazing RPG is that it did have a pretty good gameplay system compared to many other RPGs, but it can and should be improved.
Seriously people stop complaining that TW2 is being compared to other games in the same genre dammit. Look at these games, see their good parts and bad parts and see what TW3 could improve because of those games, because THAT is what game developers do. Making games in a vacuum ignorant of other games just does not happen.
As for Dark Souls vs TW2. I agree with Chromie: DS combat beats the snot out of TW2 in terms of melee combat, just because TW2 is a story focused game does not mean it can't have an amazing gameplay system on the level of Dark Souls. This is NOT asking for a DS clone.
In fact one of the things that makes TW2 such an amazing RPG is that it did have a pretty good gameplay system compared to many other RPGs, but it can and should be improved.
Wholeheartedly agree.CostinMoroianu said:
It took what, 52 posts, to get us here. Even taking into account the Samsara issue, I'm sure there are lots of cues TW combat could take from DS.
I don't mind comparisons but they too easily devolve into fanboy wars. To be honest, I wish CDPR would quit comparing Witcher to other games. They come across like they're the new kids on the block and still have something to prove, which is nonsense.
Combat system of Blade of Darkness, still unmatched, pisses on everything else.
Living world and interaction with the enviroment of Ultima 7.
Character design, narrative, world design and plotting CDPR own.
Just my personal take on what i'd like to see.
Living world and interaction with the enviroment of Ultima 7.
Character design, narrative, world design and plotting CDPR own.
Just my personal take on what i'd like to see.
Basically to have more useful weapons and loot. I think there's only about 20-30 weapons that are viable to use by the time you get them out of the total of 96 and loot such as wire rope and wooden rung rope ladders made it a chore picking up loot as opposed to something you normally look forward to in an rpg.AgentBlue said:
And have a more robust weapon/armour upgrading system than just adding runes.
Obviously that's just my opinion but for me, these things made DS more enjoyable than TW2.
The DS vs TW2 comparison ultimately leads to what each of us thinks an RPG is, and as that other thread lingering around has proven indirectly, we all think RPG's are different things. Some of us think they should be more like (tabletop) role-playing, offering intense narrative and decision-based everything (including combat), while others like the idea of an action/adventure game with looting and levels. For those who like reflex-based combat, Dark Souls is an excellent game and yes, THAT kind of combat gameplay is very tight as opposed to what TW2 did. On the other hand, those of us who play computer RPG's for the thematic complexity, dynamic story telling, concrete choice-and-consequence and tactical, decision-heavy combat, think DS is simply another action game with no role-playing whatsoever. For some people this makes a big difference and demands them to be in different (sub) genres.
TW2's problem seems to be that its combat system sits in between a few different approaches and some of us argue that it should be more like one type, and others prefer the other. If CDPR wants to go for a full on ACTION style combat, then DS or even better Severance are probably the way to go.
And about comparisons, if you want to get into detail, you can make many different kinds. For example, analogical reasoning is based on extracting similarities between two objects on different levels of abstraction and establishing different kinds of relationships. For example, you may compare properties or attributes, elements or components, or the relationships between them. Some people have suggested comparing DS and TW2 but have not defined WHAT they are comparing. Combat wise, DS probably wins because it is a game designed AROUND COMBAT! Let's also compare a game like Jade Empire that features martial arts with King of Fighters, Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter. Combat is only one dimension, people play all these games for different reasons.
So in the end, it's not about comparing TW2 and DS or any two other objects whatsoever. It is about the reasons to play certain kinds of games. The Witcher was designed as a role-playing game, and as such combat is only one dimension. Games like DS focus a LOT around combat. If CDPR wants to add that kind of combat together with role-playing elements in a very ambitious game, then so be it. But our point so far, that has eluded some of you, is that DS's combat is OBVIOUSLY "better" from your perspective because it is a different style of game altogether, one that you guys seem to really like (as opposed to other styles).
TW2's problem seems to be that its combat system sits in between a few different approaches and some of us argue that it should be more like one type, and others prefer the other. If CDPR wants to go for a full on ACTION style combat, then DS or even better Severance are probably the way to go.
And about comparisons, if you want to get into detail, you can make many different kinds. For example, analogical reasoning is based on extracting similarities between two objects on different levels of abstraction and establishing different kinds of relationships. For example, you may compare properties or attributes, elements or components, or the relationships between them. Some people have suggested comparing DS and TW2 but have not defined WHAT they are comparing. Combat wise, DS probably wins because it is a game designed AROUND COMBAT! Let's also compare a game like Jade Empire that features martial arts with King of Fighters, Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter. Combat is only one dimension, people play all these games for different reasons.
So in the end, it's not about comparing TW2 and DS or any two other objects whatsoever. It is about the reasons to play certain kinds of games. The Witcher was designed as a role-playing game, and as such combat is only one dimension. Games like DS focus a LOT around combat. If CDPR wants to add that kind of combat together with role-playing elements in a very ambitious game, then so be it. But our point so far, that has eluded some of you, is that DS's combat is OBVIOUSLY "better" from your perspective because it is a different style of game altogether, one that you guys seem to really like (as opposed to other styles).
Volsung said:
No. People who have pulled a comparison between the two games specifically cited combat and story, among other dimensions. If memory serves me well, most lauded DS combat but noted it's lacking on the story department. No one that I can recall ever proclaimed DS as wholly superior to TW.
However, you also seem to have failed to answer a fundamental question:
What leaf could TW3 take out of DS combat book while still maintaining its story-driven character? Those who dismissed the comparison from the get go simply threw the baby out with the bath water.
The Apples and Oranges idiom is one of those elusive obvious pieces of phoney baloney reasoning. The appropriate level of abstraction can render comparisons not only meaningful but frequently insightful. People who are comparing DS to TW2 are - I presume - doing just that, resorting to abstract reasoning and thus implicitly disregarding the differences between the two games and concentrating on their commonalities: they're both video games, RPGs and both place an emphasis on combat, albeit to different extents.
I could advocate BF4 levels of graphical fidelity in a game like TW3. I could summon Skyrim's free flowing camera during dialogue and herald it as a worthy addition to TW3. I could do all this and much more without ever attempting to compromise TW's story-driven nature.
OK let me filter out all the noise in my previous posts and clarify:AgentBlue said:
Comparing the combat of two games, one of which is mostly about combat itself, while the other uses combat as one of many gameplay mechanisms, doesn't really say much about either of them. Therefore, there is not much point in comparing the two.
As I mentioned, you may compare the relationships between elements in a system. For example, this relationship could be the relevance these elements play in the whole system, with respect to the game's other elements. A game that focuses on combat probably has very refined combat mechanics, not so much one where combat is just as important as problem solving or dialogue. Since the role played by the element we are comparing is very different, the comparison almost makes no sense. We can compare the relevance itself, one being greater than the other.
An absurd example would be comparing NPC and environmental reactivity and dialogue-tree expansion based on a character's attributes in Planescape: Torment and Dark Souls. And then saying Dark Souls has a lot to learn. But Dark Souls simply doesn't care about that, so it is irrelevant. And PS:T is obviously better at this. But we conclude nothing.
EDIT
What leaf could TW3 take out of DS combat book while still maintaining its story-driven character? Those who dismissed the comparison from the get go simply threw the baby out with the bath water.
My answer is another question. Why must TW3 take inspiration from DS? One is not intrinsically better than the other, it is a matter of preference.
But if CDPR really wanted to implement DS combat mechanics, then I don't see a problem with that. TW2 is already two games in one: an action game with third person combat (occasionally) and a modern computer RPG with dynamic story telling and concrete choice and consequence. Character progression in TW2 was already almost entirely combat oriented, so I don't see why they would make an exception for the third.
In any case, let's drop the argument. We both agree that if CDPR wants to increase the presence of combat in TW3 then they should probably improve the mechanics/controls.
All it needs to do is expand on the strengths of TW2's combat and cut out the weak parts. From what I've read, they're doing just that. I agree with Volsung, too much apples and oranges in here. People sell short what TW combat has always been about, and they want to make it like game 'X'. Annoys the shit out of me, really.AgentBlue said:
You do realize I never said anything about DS being in any way, shape or form better tan TW don't you? I simply have been busting a gut here to establish that, yes, it's a valid comparison. The two games aim to deliver very different experiences and that in and of itself does not prevent us from singling out this or that aspect and contrasting them.Volsung said:
Lastly, it's plain to see CDProjekt is refashioning combat, with features such as Focus mode, improved targeting and camera work, enemy AI overhaul and increased number and level of detail of combat animations.
Alright I know I came here late, and its a shame indeed. I can't bare to watch my beloved Dark Souls boiled down to just killing.
If the Witcher is a Slavic fairy tale the dark Souls can best be thought of as a haiku: subtle, superficially simple, but possessing a deep and absolutely gorgeous spirit.
The Witcher does not hold your hand. Dark Souls cuts off your hand and feeds it too the wolves. Just because the game is subtle doesn't mean a story doesn't exist. Dark Souls is has a wealth of rich story and lore. Discovering and immersing yourself in it is just as satisfying as its combat. Sure, its possible to just hack your way through the game, but the same can be said for anything. The characters are memorable and deep (you better believe it) and the story is great. Combat is second to none. Dark Souls easily tops any game in my book--except the Witcher of course. It is a glorious time indeed, with both games hold hands and dance among rainbows and flowers in my lovely mind.
Now time read the Article and make a proper post
If the Witcher is a Slavic fairy tale the dark Souls can best be thought of as a haiku: subtle, superficially simple, but possessing a deep and absolutely gorgeous spirit.
The Witcher does not hold your hand. Dark Souls cuts off your hand and feeds it too the wolves. Just because the game is subtle doesn't mean a story doesn't exist. Dark Souls is has a wealth of rich story and lore. Discovering and immersing yourself in it is just as satisfying as its combat. Sure, its possible to just hack your way through the game, but the same can be said for anything. The characters are memorable and deep (you better believe it) and the story is great. Combat is second to none. Dark Souls easily tops any game in my book--except the Witcher of course. It is a glorious time indeed, with both games hold hands and dance among rainbows and flowers in my lovely mind.
Now time read the Article and make a proper post
Ah...so that's where it all begin. Well that's pretty apt to me. Funny how the Witcher sense went from VATS, to Bat..errr...vision, to Lara Crofts survival instincts.
You can't compare two games which focus on, and specialize in, different aspects, even if they're the same genre of game. Should we compare Borderlands and Dark Souls?
Both TW2 and Dark Souls have similar combat in that it requires patience and timing, and that it's not helped by button mashing. But that's all. It's inaccurate to say TW2 as a whole is comparable to Dark Souls.
Do I wish that TW3 has more brutal, punishing, and intense combat which requires patience and timing? Yes. I sincerely hope that there's some Darker than Dark mode for TW3.
But it's pretty unhelpful to compare a story-heavy, c&c RPG to one which isn't like that, for example Dark Souls, Skyrim etc.
I compare TW games to games like Deus Ex Series, DA series, ME series, Fallout Series, Star Wars: KOTOR, and so on. And even between these games there are aspects which are not equatable.
Both TW2 and Dark Souls have similar combat in that it requires patience and timing, and that it's not helped by button mashing. But that's all. It's inaccurate to say TW2 as a whole is comparable to Dark Souls.
Do I wish that TW3 has more brutal, punishing, and intense combat which requires patience and timing? Yes. I sincerely hope that there's some Darker than Dark mode for TW3.
But it's pretty unhelpful to compare a story-heavy, c&c RPG to one which isn't like that, for example Dark Souls, Skyrim etc.
I compare TW games to games like Deus Ex Series, DA series, ME series, Fallout Series, Star Wars: KOTOR, and so on. And even between these games there are aspects which are not equatable.
I see your point.cmdrflashheart said:
But how is that you managed to evade the simple question:
Would TW3 be able to take cues from DS combat and maintain its story-driven nature? You do realize no one is requesting TW to become a DS clone don't you? Once and for all, stop beating up that poor straw man.
It's thoroughly valid to compare those games. But the pertinence of that comparison is dependant upon its framework, the level of abstraction at which you're contrasting them. Now, by definition, the effort to abstract requires disregarding certain differences and focusing on commonalities, of which there are plenty and plenty substantial.
Because Se7en is a masterpiece of a thriller and American Pie the almost entertaining by-product of a sidewalk injury, I would not be able to compare the two and say, hypothetically, gee, American Pie does boast much better photography than Se7en, hey? If game A is story-centric and game B combat-centric I see no reason why we might not be able to compare the two and come up with ways in which:
- A mimics some of B's combat specificities and looses not its fictional drive.
- B learns a lesson or two from A's story structure but keeps its strengths in the combat department.
If you've read the entire thread you now have come to realize that some are actively disputing the assumptions that surround both games when it comes to story, namely that DS has none, and combat, that TW's is inferior. Bottom line, you would have to demonstrate that borrowing this or that combat feature from DS would actually weaken TW's story drive.
In conclusion, I can definitely see where you're coming from. But it's just the most unhelpful of all places. Epistemologically, the Apples and Oranges meme is non-recyclable toxic waste.
As people have already mentioned, everything about combat in DS is not great, namely the animations. So should TW3 combat try to wholly emulate DS combat: NO.
What could it take from it? That even a weak Geralt can kill enemies by being clever. But brains over brawn should only carry you so far; there should always be a need to get skilled, improve, or optimize fighting strategy (which was present in TW2, btw).
I don't think it's a valid question when you ask, "would TW3 retain story value if combat is made more like DS combat". We know for a fact that these two separate aspects of gameplay are in the charge of different departments.
People keep saying "apples and oranges" because it applies here. We can't appreciate games when we reduce them to singular, out-of-context components.
What could it take from it? That even a weak Geralt can kill enemies by being clever. But brains over brawn should only carry you so far; there should always be a need to get skilled, improve, or optimize fighting strategy (which was present in TW2, btw).
I don't think it's a valid question when you ask, "would TW3 retain story value if combat is made more like DS combat". We know for a fact that these two separate aspects of gameplay are in the charge of different departments.
People keep saying "apples and oranges" because it applies here. We can't appreciate games when we reduce them to singular, out-of-context components.
It's called analytic thinking for a reason.cmdrflashheart said:
I'm not claiming any interdependence - though some could certainly be woven in - between story and combat in this case. I'm saying since narrative is such a big part of TW's genetic code we may as well exert caution as to not mess around with certain other aspects which in return could end up hurting the story aspect of the game. Therefore, you would have to demonstrate that bringing X combat feature in would damage the overall experience which in this case is story-centric. And you haven't even attempted that.
I'm not advocating DS combat mechanics here. I have been merely pointing out that it's valid as well as helpful to scrutinize both games against each other.
Well, as I wrote before, the only reason a combat may hurt a story is when it is a matter of allocation of time and money in development. If CDPR have limited resources, in my opinion they should concentrate on a story aspect of the game. If they have enough in both departments, then I can't even conceive how any combat mechanics can hurt a story in any way. As long as Geralt does not drop dead every 5 seconds or something (I believe that CDPR are rational enough to avoid it), and story progression is not completely stalled, I would be OK with any combat mechanics.
As you and other wise individuals say it, if there is something you're good at, that you're a specialist in, stick too it and make it better. And man, many of the decisions in the Witcher make Ornstein and Smough fight look like a square dance.
TW2 showed combat was certainly not the most important aspect of the game in both titles, as the players were given an option of easy, medium and hard. In contrast, the games challenge and combat is an enormous part of Dark Souls. Two similar goals, to different ways of achieving them. Newton and Leibniz anyone (well not quite an apt comparison but... ) Though I see both as playing a CRUCIAL role as the next step in the Genre. These are indeed the Lewis and Clark of this my generation. I guess Planescape and Ultima were Erik the Red, and MaGellan
Let me give an example of a valid comparison: the part in the linked article which mentions DS.
Saying that you enjoyed the toughness of combat in DS vs. that in TW2 is a valid statement, but it doesn't make it okay to start comparing the toughness of combat in TW2 and DS- the latter game has to have tough combat because otherwise it has nothing.
And the kind of "analytic thinking" you're talking about, Agent, is suitable only in the realm of the Ivory Tower, i.e. to impress your college or uni professor. Otherwise it's inappropriate to compare apples and oranges.
There are some people who think combat in DS is the height of awesomeness, but that's a matter of opinion.
The only thing about DS combat that people would like in TW3 is the difficulty, but not anything in particular (or so it seems, thus far).
If I remember correctly, important aspects of DS and TW2 combat are already similar, like using items strategically, using equipment effectively, and timing off/def moves appropriately.
Also, I don't understand why you or others think that the storytelling aspects in TW3 will be affected by combat mechanics. It's not my charge to demonstrate anything when I don't think that way, and I already said these two aspects are being handled separately, so I am not worried.
If you want to be practical, then you should only compare things if they're equatable.
Saying that you enjoyed the toughness of combat in DS vs. that in TW2 is a valid statement, but it doesn't make it okay to start comparing the toughness of combat in TW2 and DS- the latter game has to have tough combat because otherwise it has nothing.
And the kind of "analytic thinking" you're talking about, Agent, is suitable only in the realm of the Ivory Tower, i.e. to impress your college or uni professor. Otherwise it's inappropriate to compare apples and oranges.
There are some people who think combat in DS is the height of awesomeness, but that's a matter of opinion.
The only thing about DS combat that people would like in TW3 is the difficulty, but not anything in particular (or so it seems, thus far).
If I remember correctly, important aspects of DS and TW2 combat are already similar, like using items strategically, using equipment effectively, and timing off/def moves appropriately.
Also, I don't understand why you or others think that the storytelling aspects in TW3 will be affected by combat mechanics. It's not my charge to demonstrate anything when I don't think that way, and I already said these two aspects are being handled separately, so I am not worried.